[lit-ideas] Re: Berwyn Heights mayor denounces police tactics
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 00:24:01 -0500
RE: [lit-ideas] Re: Berwyn Heights mayor denounces police tactics
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:30 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Berwyn Heights mayor denounces police tactics
Julie wrote, "Are you somehow oddly suggesting that if the Mayor and his
mother-in-law had possessed guns, the situation would have gone better? "
Knowing that some people might jump to that conclusion, I wrote "The point of
the argument last year was whether people needed guns to defend themselves.
Mike thought that his very select and very, very well trained SWAT teams would
be all the protection innocent civilians would need. I chose not to trust
Mike's SWAT teams. Select them as carefully as you want and they will still be
human beings who make mistakes."
I thought that would be enough to show that what we were talking about was
what people needed to defend themselves. I believe in the Second Amendment and
therefore believe in owning guns for self defense. Mike thought otherwise. He
thought SWAT teams would be enough. So no, I don't think the situation would
have gone better if the Mayor had produced a gun. That wasn't what we were
debating. The subject is SWAT teams in lieu of guns for self-defense. If
SWAT teams are adequate protection for civilians then they won't need guns,
Mike argued. But here is a SWAT team in action.
Julie went on, "Perhaps what would have helped was a much better-trained,
disciplined SWAT team -- which likely would be possible if they weren't
half-way expecting any individual they have to deal with to be armed."
Ah, so you are weighing in on Mike's side. You are assuming it is possible
to get rid of all guns without exception. For if one Seung Cho might be out
there with a gun he purchased from the Russian Mafia, then the SWAT teams are
still going to have chips on their shoulders. I mean, look at Mike. One Cho
killing 32 people makes him want to take away every gun in the United States,
except those owned by SWAT. So using Mike's philosophy, the potential
existence of a Cho, would cause his SWAT teams to behave the same way they did
while invading the Mayor's house.
And why did they kill the Mayor's dogs? They were perhaps assuming the
Mayor, being a drug dealer, had pit bulls. Maybe you need to go a little
further and get rid of all protective-type dogs as well. Then the highly
well-trained SWAT teams won't imagine they see pit-bulls when they see Labrador
Retrievers.
Lawrence Helm
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Julie Krueger
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:08 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Berwyn Heights mayor denounces police tactics
Are you somehow oddly suggesting that if the Mayor and his mother-in-law had
possessed guns, the situation would have gone better?
Perhaps what would have helped was a much better-trained, disciplined SWAT
team -- which likely would be possible if they weren't half-way expecting any
individual they have to deal with to be armed. Human error and over-reaction
is much more likely under the (necessary in a gun-wielding society) assumption
of armed threat.
Julie Krueger
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I want to revisit a discussion Mike and I had last year after Seung-Hui Cho
murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech. Mike, as Gun Control advocates do, took
this cause célèbre as an excuse for calling for universal gun control - well
not universal, Mike said. "There would probably have to be a SWAT unit, but it
would be very select and very, very well trained. But they would doubtless be
as lonely as the Maytag repairman. There's no reason for anyone to have a gun
if no one else has a gun. So you can relax, Lawrence, policemen will be your
friends."
The Mayor of Prince George had an occurrence similar to mine and he was paid
a visit by one of Mike's SWAT teams. The Anti-Terrorist Task Force showed up
at my door because some disgruntled Rhodesian Ridgeback breeder decided to "get
even" with me by implying I might be a terrorist. In the Mayor's case, drug
dealers who feared they were being tracked by police, sent some drugs to random
addresses and then waited to see if those houses would be targeted by police.
In the case of the mayor, the police were following the drugs. One of Mike's
"very select and very, very well trained" SWAT teams invaded the mayor's house,
put his mother-in-law in handcuffs and shot the mayor's two Labrador
Retrievers. Well, you can read about it yourself:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-mayor0807,0,4563211.story
The point of the argument last year was whether people needed guns to defend
themselves. Mike thought that his very select and very, very well trained SWAT
teams would be all the protection innocent civilians would need. I chose not
to trust Mike's SWAT teams. Select them as carefully as you want and they will
still be human beings who make mistakes.
By the way, since the Anti-Terrorist Task Force accusation originated in a
Rhodesian Ridgeback discussion group, and since I was not quite done talking
about all its ramifications - and since the moderator reminded me that the
forum was for dogs not politics, a helpful nephew created a Blog for me,
www.lawrencehelm.com If Mike visits that blog he will find reference to a
fictitious gun-control advocate named Mike. If he takes offense at that, I
hope he will talk it over with me before sending his SWAT team to my house. I
shall gladly recant everything.
Lawrence Helm
Other related posts:
